malik@helos.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (02/18/85)
subj; two questions 1) What is the current opinion of AMA endorsed Nutritionists on the value/danger of a macrobiotic diet? 2) Does anyone know of a book on what to eat that takes in the big picture? What I mean by that is, 'eat more fish and less red meat' is good advice until you consider the danger of mercury contamination. Some fruits and vegetables are coated with a carcinogenic polish. The list is endless. Also, specialized diets center in on one issue (e.g., fiber) to the exclusion of all other dietary issues. Has anyone taken on the Herculian task of coordinating all the known data about our nutritional needs and the food supply AS IT REALLY IS, and then made recommendations? - Karl
ellen@reed.UUCP (04/20/86)
> >the actual [macrobiotic] food we are talking about is of > >considerable variety and of the highest quality. > > I just wanted to state for the record that the theory underlying > the macrobiotic diet is scientificaly dubious. [...] > For example, the "highest" type of diet is supposed to be > cooked brown rice with a little water and salt, exclusively, > as I recall. I tried that and found it unsuitable, for me at least. I have heard that the macrobiotic diet is genuinely unsafe; as one gradually reduces the variety of foods, finally eating only brown rice, one stops getting anywhere near enough essential minerals and vitamins. Many people have actually starved to death on this diet, gone into hospital, etc; women stop menstruating. I don't know a lot about the first few levels of the diet, but the end result is downright dangerous. ellen -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (04/22/86)
Could someone with some background in macrobiotics address these
concerns? It seems to me from what little I read, that proponents
of macrobiotic diets want to have it both ways: they play up the
relatively traditional aspects on the early diets when speaking to
the dubious, and push the extreme diets when addressing the converted.
How about some facts?
(Len, is there anyone at ewj01 who can speak to this?)
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{bbncca,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyerlj@ewj01.UUCP (Leonard Jacobs) (04/23/86)
> Could someone with some background in macrobiotics address these > concerns? It seems to me from what little I read, that proponents > of macrobiotic diets want to have it both ways: they play up the > relatively traditional aspects on the early diets when speaking to > the dubious, and push the extreme diets when addressing the converted. > How about some facts? > Seems there are several issues in question. What is a macrobiotic diet; does this diet include those nutrients considered healthful and essential in any valuable configuration; are there health claims beyond the rational or confirmable made by macro proponents. These issues are vast and probably not suitable for concise or complete discussion in this format. But to summarize some points: The idea of a total brown rice regimen is, I believe, a faint memory from the late 1960s when their were many false hope of quick routes to instant enlightenment and immortality. The current diet is fairly simple but does include most, if not all, essential nutrients. Not much in the way of animal protein, yet fish, poultry, eggs are all on the recommended lists. I have not seen anything published from macrobiotic organizations during the past 10 years that has recommended a total rice diet as any kind of ideal. If anyone has some leads to the contrary, please let me know. In fact the recommendations include a fairly inclusive semi-vegetarian diet with quite a bit of variety and nutrients. Low in fat and refined sugars, high in fiber and ecologically sound food choices. I believe the fermentation is good in providing enzymes and vitamins, including B12, not otherwise found on a diet with limited amounts of animal food and dairy foods. The use of sea vegetables, which can be made palatable to most everyone, also provide an incredibly rich variety of essential nutrients not found in many other foods. I think one of the problems in interpretation is that the most visible and vocal proponents of this dietary approach have an interest in Oriental foods, especially Japanese. The philosophy is meant to be applied to whatever was traditionally consumed in your geographic region. Look to recent (>100 years ago, and before major industrialization) history to decide what makes sense to eat from an ecologic and health perspective. Dogma is not meant to play a major part in this decision. A romantic vision of the past may play a major part in it. If in Alaska, eat as the Eskimos, if in Costa Rica, eat as the natives. If in Boston, try to choose foods that were eaten by people living here prior to air freight and freezers. (What about miso from Japan? Good question!) Nevertheless, the diet seems to standardize around some very specific foods, yet I believe this is only a passing fancy with things Japanese and will most likely change and become both braoder as well as becoming even closer to the recommendations from NIH, Surgeon General, etc., etc. More complex carbohydrats, more fresh fruits and vegetables, less fat, refined sugars, and so forth. Fermented foods and salty foods are of course part of many people's traditional diets. If looking at a Japanese diet, the choices are different if selecting foods in the U.S. or in Japan. Simply, the variety of Japanese foods in the States is far more restrictive than what you might find in Japan. More salty and spicy foods here. However, if you do not choose much processed, i.e., canned or frozen foods; do not eat at fast food places, like MacDonald and Wendy; do not take much packaged super market foods, especially chips and other snacks, the amount of salt consumed on a macrobiotic diet will be fairly low. How much will depend on whether low sodium miso and soy sauces are chosen. Those foods are about the only ones with much salt (the sea vegetables are washed before eating). There are quite a few people who have chosen to eliminate salt altogether on this type of diet. As for the somewhat outrageous health claims, I would like to leave this to the publishers of the many books making those claims, including Harper & Row, Japan Publications, St. Martins, Avery Publishing, Houghton Mifflin, etc. These companies and the authors of their books should substantiate the health claims made. One point worth considering however, is that noone can deny the hopes people have focused toward their cures and how close this is to a religious fervor. Hard to refute the power of positive visualizations and deep religious faith in your cure. Simonton's and others have documented many instances of a positive image having remarkable (miraculous?) results in the so-called cure of incredibly difficult symptoms and conditions. Does diet cure disease or is it merely the catalyst to give focus to an all powerful conversion that in some dramatic cases has seemed to cure the incurable? But this is really an issue of religion and psychology. Sorry to have gone on, but I hope to have cleared up some confusion. Please mail to me for references and books, but realize I am not trying to defend this diet merely clarify some misconceptions. I personally think the low fat high complex carbohydrate diet is sensible, tasty and healthful. I am not interested in trying to convert anyone else. Each to their own. Len Jacobs {ihnp4,harvard}!bbnccv!ewj01!lj -- Len Jacobs East West Journal {harvard,seismo,ihnp4}!bbnccv!ewj01!lj